It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
I wouldn't use the word "proof". But as I said in my first reply to this thread, the CMB is one of the most compelling pieces of evidence of the singularity, which strongly support the big bang theory, but it doesn't really "prove" it.
Originally posted by jiggerj
What proof would you have of a singularity if you are living on one of those dots?
Originally posted by jiggerj
Now, what I interpret that to mean is we are seeing the light of that galaxy from where is was positioned 13.3 billion light years ago. You are right, it is no longer there. Since that time is has been moving away (for millions and millions of years). If the universe is 14 billion years old, then how can that furthest galaxy be THAT far away?
Anyone, anyone, anyone?
In this image it wont matter on which dot you stand on. It will look like every dot is moving away from you no matter were you are. If you reverse the expansion all the dots will mass up on each other in one big ball of hot plasma energy.
3. Metallicity observations which show more hydrogen content in objects with long "lookback times" meaning closer to the big bang, and less hydrogen content in more mature objects like our sun and solar system. This is consistent with there being a lot of hydrogen right after the big bang, and less over time.
Big Bang
thousands of years were needed before the appearance of the first electrically neutral atoms. The first element produced was hydrogen, along with traces of helium and lithium.
Originally posted by jiggerj
reply to post by spy66
In this image it wont matter on which dot you stand on. It will look like every dot is moving away from you no matter were you are. If you reverse the expansion all the dots will mass up on each other in one big ball of hot plasma energy.
That's exactly my point. Which dot represents the point of origin? Is it the dot marked in red, pulling all the galaxies back toward it? Is it the yellow one, pulling all the galaxies back toward it? The blue one, pulling all the galaxies back toward it? The orange one pulling all the galaxies back toward it?
I'm not even saying that there isn't a point of origin. I'm just saying that using this method of reversing the direction of all the galaxies we see from only our perspective doesn't locate that point, nor does it prove that one exists. If anything it suggests MANY points of origin, but we know that can't be right.edit on 6/9/2013 by jiggerj because: (no reason given)
Yes it's still loaded with hydrogen, but there used to be more. Look in the sky and what do we see? Stars converting hydrogen into heavier elements. Our sun in just one second converts something like 620 million metric tons of hydrogen into 616 tons of helium. And it's expected to keep doing this for maybe another 5 billion years so there's a lot of hydrogen left in our sun, but not as much as there used to be. (620 million tons less now than there was one second ago). But most of the hydrogen from the early universe has not yet been converted into heavier elements, and that's why there's still so much hydrogen left, as you suggested.
Originally posted by jiggerj
What do you mean by less hydrogen over the years? I thought the universe today is loaded with it?
Only a few percent of the original hydrogen and helium in the Universe has been burned this way.
For the first time, astronomers have found pristine clouds of the primordial gas that formed in the first few minutes after the Big Bang. The composition of the gas matches theoretical predictions, providing direct evidence in support of the modern cosmological explanation for the origins of elements in the universe.
That's complicated and perhaps even somewhat speculative, but there's a wiki article that attempts to answer it. Hydrogen (and helium) formed during the recombination phase, and the link has descriptions for the phases which might have existed previously:
Also, we know that hydrogen is the simplest of all the elements. So, if hydrogen didn't come directly out of the Big Bang, what the heck DID come out of it that was capable of being converted INTO hydrogen?
It's got the Wiki warning at the top so it may not be a perfect article, and it even describes some phases as speculative, but it's probably close enough for the purposes of our present discussion to give you some idea of current thinking. I think we can expect this model of the earliest universe to improve as we learn more, however.
1 Very early universe
1.1 Planck epoch
1.2 Grand unification epoch
1.3 Electroweak epoch
1.3.1 Inflationary epoch
1.3.2 Baryogenesis
2 Early universe
2.1 Supersymmetry breaking (speculative)
2.2 Electroweak symmetry breaking and the quark epoch
2.3 Hadron epoch
2.4 Lepton epoch
2.5 Photon epoch
2.5.1 Nucleosynthesis
2.5.2 Matter domination
2.5.3 Recombination
2.5.4 Dark Ages
I'm glad it was helpful. It's refreshing to see people ask questions about the big bang theory to understand why it's popular with scientists, instead of just dismissing it like some other people do, because they don't think it makes sense, and haven't really researched all the supporting evidence.
By the way, I LOVED your reply. Very informative!
Are you talking about this post of a video by a NASA astronomer saying they aren't really moving away but rather the space between them is increasing?
Originally posted by vind21
This entire post, and all the topics within rely on things that have yet to be proven.
1. That galaxies actualy are moving away from us. This is not a known fact, red shift, has come under serious fire once again lately.